Moonbats always try to play this class war crap... but the truth is CEO is not overpaid

The median expected salary for a typical Chief Executive Officer in the United States is $727,044. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.

Of the roughly 30 million businesses in the United States, less than 6,000 are publicly traded on major stock exchanges. As anyone who gets their information from mainstream news and media outlets well knows, the spotlight and analysis for business (especially in regard to CEO compensation) are firmly focused on S&P 500 companies. That means that virtually 100 percent of media coverage of CEO compensation focuses on less than 8 percent of all public companies and less than .002 percent of all companies in the U.S.

With this narrow and statistically insignificant scale in mind, how could the information disseminated about CEO compensation be meaningful? The plain truth is that it isnât.

The reality of CEO compensation is drastically different from the coverage given by major media outlets in articles like, âTypical CEO made $9.6 million last year, AP study findsâ and the USA Todayâs âCEO pay rises again in 2011, while workers struggle to find work,â as well as The New York Timesâ âC.E.O. Pay is Rising, Despite the Din.â The Associated Press reportâs assertion that the âtypical CEOâ had a $9.6 million annual pay package in 2011 and the mediaâs portrayal of that finding as part of a trend of increased CEO compensation could not be farther from the truth.

In 2011, the median private company CEO in our survey earned a total compensation package of $362,900. That is just 3.8 percent of the number reported as âtypicalâ in the Associated Press study. For private companies with at least $1 billion in revenue, the median CEO compensation package totaled just under $1.7 million, which is still less than 18 percent of the AP figure.

Of course, chiefexecutive.net wouldn't have any vested interest in skewing their own samples toward a favorable light, would they...?? heh.

Salaries are one thing. Total compensation is quite another.

In any case, that's not what this is about. This is about what we define as a "livable wage" and its attainability. In light of that, the economic approaches are: a) raise the workers' wages, b) lower the standard of living, c) both, or d) neither and instead rely on the status quo.

Quite clearly, that last option is the least popular among americans.

Exactly what interest would chiefexec.net have to skewing their pay??? they need to look good for who? so the moonbats won't complain?? and so what if they do?? Private companies worry about what people think?

The typical corporate CEO makes more than $200,000 in 45 different U.S. markets.

Bridgeport-Stamford, Conn., has the nation's most generous salary structure for chief executive officers. Its CEOs were paid an average of $234,030 last year, according to an On Numbers analysis of new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Don't eat as much, is a way to be thin. It actually saves money, too, doesn't it? Millionaire supermodels starve themselves regularly...but to even mention personal responsibility, makes liberals get stressed and eat donuts.

Actually food stamps clearly contribute to the biggest problem of poor people regarding food: obesity, no question. With an EBT card, you have more incentive to USE it....more unhealthy food consumption results.

Maybe I`m not searching in the right place but it sure seems like starvation in the US is an ideologicall myth (yet another) on the Left.

Starvation is simply what would happen if people like Paul Ryan got their way, and a budget was passed that eventually left for domestic spending a smaller dollar amount than it now costs to run the FBI.....

Because then the entire food-provision arm of the safety net would have to shut down. And no, don't give me that charity nonsense. That it is nonsense is why these programs started in the first place.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to bet that some of the homeless are pretty close to starvation but likely die of disease first - the ones too mentally ill to seek help, etc.

However, how much "hunger" do you think should be tolerable? If a single mom's kid eats one decent meal a day? Two?

As someone who has also worked quite hard, I simply do not see that in the richest country on Earth, we should be saying "eh, as long as they aren't dying in the streets, it's enough".

I'd be all behind stronger enforcement to cut down on abuse of the programs. But I want the programs there.

Humans have a nasty habit of putting too little stock in circumstance when they have worked hard and gotten ahead.

No hunger should be tolerable. None! That`s why I give a ton to charity and certainly do my part to support these programs. We have to have these programs but, we have to stop the abuse. We also should be striving to reduce the numbers on SNAP and EBT by growing and creating jobs. Less dependency is a good thing.

I`m not so sure some of the 47% think this way.

Maybe we should start making things in this country again. Maybe there should be higher tarrifs on imported goods. Maybe business shouldn't be allowed to hire undocumented workers.Maybe CEOs should be held more accountable and not offshore production because it makes their bottom line look better.

Absolutely agree! Let`s start with Jeff Immelt from GE. One of America`s wealthiest companies, Immelt made $29 million last year and GE paid ZERO U.S Taxes.

Oh......and BTW, he`s Obama`s Job Czar!

Sure! We can start with him, but let's not finish with him. I gotta say, I've new respect for you! I thought you were one of those people who thought the rich had gotten there because of "hard work and being job creators" and that taxing large corporations stifled expansion. But now? I respect you to a certain extent!

rich people didn't get rich due to hard work and being job creators?

So, are you saying successful people are bad people? Did all of them become rich solely by taking advantage of people? If you are rich, you got there through nefarious means?

typical liberal illogic, that rich people are all Snidley Whiplash's.

i smell jealousy. And a poor understanding of what it takes to be successful.

Hey Skooter, slow down there. Go back and read the thread. I'm not saying successful people are all bad no more than I'm saying they're all good. But sure, some of them get there through nefarious means. Off-shore work or profits? Hire illegals at sub par wages? Cut workers hours to avoid paying for benefits? All for your bottom line? Well yes, I've got a problem with being "successful". I guess the definition of "success" varies from person to person. Is it how much money you make? Is it pride in a job well done? Is it having children? Is it a big house? Is it being in love with someone who loves you? Is it happiness? Or is it simply being content?

So, you focus on the few bad successful people, and ignore the majority good successful people?

Nice topic shift into other measurements of success. I actually agree with that part.

Considering this thread is about the millions on food-stamps would you be focusing your contempt on the few bad poor people, or the majority of good ones?

Neither. Focusing on a government program that is not needed. Food Stamps are not needed at all. It is a program that attacks a non-existent problem, and in fact, makes it worse.

If you can't find a way to feed yourself in a country awash with food, soup kitchens, giving people, and opportunity, then your problems are not being solved by the government buying you food.

"Two graphs, just to drive the point home. The cheap food revolution hasn't just given low-income families cheaper options. It's come at the expense of healthier food. A dollar today buys 1,200 calories of potato chips and 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. Walsh gets it right: "it simply costs too much to be thin."

Ah, no. That part is dribble. I was talking aobut the overall cost numbers. Can't speak for everything, and unlike the lefties here, I don't censor my article references to only the parts that support my view. And, he might be right if you buy the chips at Market Basket and the vegatables at Whole Foods. Only an idiot shops at Whole Foods. It is a complete waste of money. But they do take EBT cards there.

So, I am a living example of that he is wrong on that particular point. As Sister points out, I eat well on 5-6 dollars a day. Healthy, and not hungry, and definitely not starving.

It is not about calories as much as it is about a proper balance of carbs, fats, and proteins. You get that balance right, eating fresh foods, you can meet your dietary needs cheaply.

Fresh food is cheap and plentiful. Stop listening to the big business ads trying to get you to eat frozen pizza and potatoe chips.

Maybe I`m not searching in the right place but it sure seems like starvation in the US is an ideologicall myth (yet another) on the Left.

Starvation is simply what would happen if people like Paul Ryan got their way, and a budget was passed that eventually left for domestic spending a smaller dollar amount than it now costs to run the FBI.....

Because then the entire food-provision arm of the safety net would have to shut down. And no, don't give me that charity nonsense. That it is nonsense is why these programs started in the first place.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to bet that some of the homeless are pretty close to starvation but likely die of disease first - the ones too mentally ill to seek help, etc.

However, how much "hunger" do you think should be tolerable? If a single mom's kid eats one decent meal a day? Two?

As someone who has also worked quite hard, I simply do not see that in the richest country on Earth, we should be saying "eh, as long as they aren't dying in the streets, it's enough".

I'd be all behind stronger enforcement to cut down on abuse of the programs. But I want the programs there.

Humans have a nasty habit of putting too little stock in circumstance when they have worked hard and gotten ahead.

No hunger should be tolerable. None! That`s why I give a ton to charity and certainly do my part to support these programs. We have to have these programs but, we have to stop the abuse. We also should be striving to reduce the numbers on SNAP and EBT by growing and creating jobs. Less dependency is a good thing.

I`m not so sure some of the 47% think this way.

Maybe we should start making things in this country again. Maybe there should be higher tarrifs on imported goods. Maybe business shouldn't be allowed to hire undocumented workers.Maybe CEOs should be held more accountable and not offshore production because it makes their bottom line look better.

Absolutely agree! Let`s start with Jeff Immelt from GE. One of America`s wealthiest companies, Immelt made $29 million last year and GE paid ZERO U.S Taxes.

Oh......and BTW, he`s Obama`s Job Czar!

Sure! We can start with him, but let's not finish with him. I gotta say, I've new respect for you! I thought you were one of those people who thought the rich had gotten there because of "hard work and being job creators" and that taxing large corporations stifled expansion. But now? I respect you to a certain extent!

rich people didn't get rich due to hard work and being job creators?

So, are you saying successful people are bad people? Did all of them become rich solely by taking advantage of people? If you are rich, you got there through nefarious means?

typical liberal illogic, that rich people are all Snidley Whiplash's.

i smell jealousy. And a poor understanding of what it takes to be successful.

Hey Skooter, slow down there. Go back and read the thread. I'm not saying successful people are all bad no more than I'm saying they're all good. But sure, some of them get there through nefarious means. Off-shore work or profits? Hire illegals at sub par wages? Cut workers hours to avoid paying for benefits? All for your bottom line? Well yes, I've got a problem with being "successful". I guess the definition of "success" varies from person to person. Is it how much money you make? Is it pride in a job well done? Is it having children? Is it a big house? Is it being in love with someone who loves you? Is it happiness? Or is it simply being content?

So, you focus on the few bad successful people, and ignore the majority good successful people?

Nice topic shift into other measurements of success. I actually agree with that part.

Considering this thread is about the millions on food-stamps would you be focusing your contempt on the few bad poor people, or the majority of good ones?

Neither. Focusing on a government program that is not needed. Food Stamps are not needed at all. It is a program that attacks a non-existent problem, and in fact, makes it worse.

If you can't find a way to feed yourself in a country awash with food, soup kitchens, giving people, and opportunity, then your problems are not being solved by the government buying you food.

The only way to prove you are wrong is to stop the SNAP program, and all federal subsidies that go to food and agriculture. If people die, you were wrong.

But the best evidence you are wrong comes from what the country looked like prior to these programs. The US Government started getting into the hunger business in 1932. Before that there were plenty of rich people, and plenty of charities, and plenty of soup kitchens, and plenty of churches, but millions died of starvation.

You're convinced, based not on history (is looking at these prior conditions an example of living in the past?) or looking at other countries (85,000 Mexicans died of starvation in the last decade) but from your gut, that these programs are useless. But your gut isn't grumbling, so everything everywhere must be fine. What more can really be said?

Maybe I`m not searching in the right place but it sure seems like starvation in the US is an ideologicall myth (yet another) on the Left.

Starvation is simply what would happen if people like Paul Ryan got their way, and a budget was passed that eventually left for domestic spending a smaller dollar amount than it now costs to run the FBI.....

Because then the entire food-provision arm of the safety net would have to shut down. And no, don't give me that charity nonsense. That it is nonsense is why these programs started in the first place.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to bet that some of the homeless are pretty close to starvation but likely die of disease first - the ones too mentally ill to seek help, etc.

However, how much "hunger" do you think should be tolerable? If a single mom's kid eats one decent meal a day? Two?

As someone who has also worked quite hard, I simply do not see that in the richest country on Earth, we should be saying "eh, as long as they aren't dying in the streets, it's enough".

I'd be all behind stronger enforcement to cut down on abuse of the programs. But I want the programs there.

Humans have a nasty habit of putting too little stock in circumstance when they have worked hard and gotten ahead.

No hunger should be tolerable. None! That`s why I give a ton to charity and certainly do my part to support these programs. We have to have these programs but, we have to stop the abuse. We also should be striving to reduce the numbers on SNAP and EBT by growing and creating jobs. Less dependency is a good thing.

I`m not so sure some of the 47% think this way.

Maybe we should start making things in this country again. Maybe there should be higher tarrifs on imported goods. Maybe business shouldn't be allowed to hire undocumented workers.Maybe CEOs should be held more accountable and not offshore production because it makes their bottom line look better.

Absolutely agree! Let`s start with Jeff Immelt from GE. One of America`s wealthiest companies, Immelt made $29 million last year and GE paid ZERO U.S Taxes.

Oh......and BTW, he`s Obama`s Job Czar!

Sure! We can start with him, but let's not finish with him. I gotta say, I've new respect for you! I thought you were one of those people who thought the rich had gotten there because of "hard work and being job creators" and that taxing large corporations stifled expansion. But now? I respect you to a certain extent!

rich people didn't get rich due to hard work and being job creators?

So, are you saying successful people are bad people? Did all of them become rich solely by taking advantage of people? If you are rich, you got there through nefarious means?

typical liberal illogic, that rich people are all Snidley Whiplash's.

i smell jealousy. And a poor understanding of what it takes to be successful.

Hey Skooter, slow down there. Go back and read the thread. I'm not saying successful people are all bad no more than I'm saying they're all good. But sure, some of them get there through nefarious means. Off-shore work or profits? Hire illegals at sub par wages? Cut workers hours to avoid paying for benefits? All for your bottom line? Well yes, I've got a problem with being "successful". I guess the definition of "success" varies from person to person. Is it how much money you make? Is it pride in a job well done? Is it having children? Is it a big house? Is it being in love with someone who loves you? Is it happiness? Or is it simply being content?

So, you focus on the few bad successful people, and ignore the majority good successful people?

Nice topic shift into other measurements of success. I actually agree with that part.

Considering this thread is about the millions on food-stamps would you be focusing your contempt on the few bad poor people, or the majority of good ones?

Neither. Focusing on a government program that is not needed. Food Stamps are not needed at all. It is a program that attacks a non-existent problem, and in fact, makes it worse.

If you can't find a way to feed yourself in a country awash with food, soup kitchens, giving people, and opportunity, then your problems are not being solved by the government buying you food.

The only way to prove you are wrong is to stop the SNAP program, and all federal subsidies that go to food and agriculture. If people die, you were wrong.

But the best evidence you are wrong comes from what the country looked like prior to these programs. The US Government started getting into the hunger business in 1932. Before that there were plenty of rich people, and plenty of charities, and plenty of soup kitchens, and plenty of churches, but millions died of starvation.

You're convinced, based not on history (is looking at these prior conditions an example of living in the past?) or looking at other countries (85,000 Mexicans died of starvation in the last decade) but from your gut, that these programs are useless. But your gut isn't grumbling, so everything everywhere must be fine. What more can really be said?

"but millions died of starvation."

Sorry slomag, can`t find proof of this, or anything remotely close to those numbers anywhere.

You'll never see the cause of death listed as 'starvation'. The cause of death will be septicemia, or pneumonia or dehydration because that is what actually killed the victims. But for all practical purposes thousands of great depression and dust bowl era people starved to death: they died because they couldn't get sufficient food.

You'll never see the cause of death listed as 'starvation'. The cause of death will be septicemia, or pneumonia or dehydration because that is what actually killed the victims. But for all practical purposes thousands of great depression and dust bowl era people starved to death: they died because they couldn't get sufficient food.

"thousands"?

Don`t think so. There`s no data to back that up. Food programs (in some cases, stamps) began as far back as 1932.

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

Facts mean nothing to you, do they? Read the article. food is cheaper here than anywhere on the globe.

But, maybe you need to spend less time in the frozen pizza aisle, or more time at Market Basket and less time at Whole Foods.

Food is cheap. And plentiful. So plentiful we turn 40% of our corn into fuel. 40%. Think about it.

Yep.

skeeter I go shopping every week .... sometimes twice a week ..... food is not cheap ....... I know how to count .

OK. I ran the numbers. Everything I spent in grocery stores, food for me, paper towels, food for the soup kitchen, snacks I bring to the office for everyone else, $107.78 per week on average. (isn't quicken great, BTW?)

So, I might be a little bit low on the food. Maybe 80 a week. Still, it is CHEAP.

I spend about twice that every week for gas.

So, I repeat: If you and your significant other can't scrape together even 80 a week, maybe it's your priority. That, and there are plenty of free meals out there. you might be hungry from time to time (I am) but you will not starve. Starving is the claim.

It isn't happening.

As an aside, I buy almost the same food week in, week out, for years. the 2011 number is 95 dollars. That's an 11% increase, i.e. inflation in the last year.

Maybe I`m not searching in the right place but it sure seems like starvation in the US is an ideologicall myth (yet another) on the Left.

Starvation is simply what would happen if people like Paul Ryan got their way, and a budget was passed that eventually left for domestic spending a smaller dollar amount than it now costs to run the FBI.....

Because then the entire food-provision arm of the safety net would have to shut down. And no, don't give me that charity nonsense. That it is nonsense is why these programs started in the first place.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to bet that some of the homeless are pretty close to starvation but likely die of disease first - the ones too mentally ill to seek help, etc.

However, how much "hunger" do you think should be tolerable? If a single mom's kid eats one decent meal a day? Two?

As someone who has also worked quite hard, I simply do not see that in the richest country on Earth, we should be saying "eh, as long as they aren't dying in the streets, it's enough".

I'd be all behind stronger enforcement to cut down on abuse of the programs. But I want the programs there.

Humans have a nasty habit of putting too little stock in circumstance when they have worked hard and gotten ahead.

No hunger should be tolerable. None! That`s why I give a ton to charity and certainly do my part to support these programs. We have to have these programs but, we have to stop the abuse. We also should be striving to reduce the numbers on SNAP and EBT by growing and creating jobs. Less dependency is a good thing.

I`m not so sure some of the 47% think this way.

Maybe we should start making things in this country again. Maybe there should be higher tarrifs on imported goods. Maybe business shouldn't be allowed to hire undocumented workers.Maybe CEOs should be held more accountable and not offshore production because it makes their bottom line look better.

Absolutely agree! Let`s start with Jeff Immelt from GE. One of America`s wealthiest companies, Immelt made $29 million last year and GE paid ZERO U.S Taxes.

Oh......and BTW, he`s Obama`s Job Czar!

Sure! We can start with him, but let's not finish with him. I gotta say, I've new respect for you! I thought you were one of those people who thought the rich had gotten there because of "hard work and being job creators" and that taxing large corporations stifled expansion. But now? I respect you to a certain extent!

rich people didn't get rich due to hard work and being job creators?

So, are you saying successful people are bad people? Did all of them become rich solely by taking advantage of people? If you are rich, you got there through nefarious means?

typical liberal illogic, that rich people are all Snidley Whiplash's.

i smell jealousy. And a poor understanding of what it takes to be successful.

Hey Skooter, slow down there. Go back and read the thread. I'm not saying successful people are all bad no more than I'm saying they're all good. But sure, some of them get there through nefarious means. Off-shore work or profits? Hire illegals at sub par wages? Cut workers hours to avoid paying for benefits? All for your bottom line? Well yes, I've got a problem with being "successful". I guess the definition of "success" varies from person to person. Is it how much money you make? Is it pride in a job well done? Is it having children? Is it a big house? Is it being in love with someone who loves you? Is it happiness? Or is it simply being content?

So, you focus on the few bad successful people, and ignore the majority good successful people?

Nice topic shift into other measurements of success. I actually agree with that part.

Considering this thread is about the millions on food-stamps would you be focusing your contempt on the few bad poor people, or the majority of good ones?

Neither. Focusing on a government program that is not needed. Food Stamps are not needed at all. It is a program that attacks a non-existent problem, and in fact, makes it worse.

If you can't find a way to feed yourself in a country awash with food, soup kitchens, giving people, and opportunity, then your problems are not being solved by the government buying you food.

The only way to prove you are wrong is to stop the SNAP program, and all federal subsidies that go to food and agriculture. If people die, you were wrong.

But the best evidence you are wrong comes from what the country looked like prior to these programs. The US Government started getting into the hunger business in 1932. Before that there were plenty of rich people, and plenty of charities, and plenty of soup kitchens, and plenty of churches, but millions died of starvation.

You're convinced, based not on history (is looking at these prior conditions an example of living in the past?) or looking at other countries (85,000 Mexicans died of starvation in the last decade) but from your gut, that these programs are useless. But your gut isn't grumbling, so everything everywhere must be fine. What more can really be said?

You are ignoring the facts right in front of your face. We are awash in food. So much so, that the liberals are embarking on obesity prevention programs forthe very people SNAP supposedly helps.

But, you cite Mexico as an example? A country so corrupt and socialist that people flee it to come here.

We are not Mexico, but, wait a couple of years, with Obama, we will get there.

You'll never see the cause of death listed as 'starvation'. The cause of death will be septicemia, or pneumonia or dehydration because that is what actually killed the victims. But for all practical purposes thousands of great depression and dust bowl era people starved to death: they died because they couldn't get sufficient food.

Are we in a great depression now?

We are AWASH in food. We turn 40% of our corn into fuel.

We live in a country where you can buy four chicken legs for around two dollars.

Food is cheap, it is plentiful. No one needs to be subsidized to eat it.

Facts mean nothing to you, do they? Read the article. food is cheaper here than anywhere on the globe.

But, maybe you need to spend less time in the frozen pizza aisle, or more time at Market Basket and less time at Whole Foods.

Food is cheap. And plentiful. So plentiful we turn 40% of our corn into fuel. 40%. Think about it.

Yep.

skeeter I go shopping every week .... sometimes twice a week ..... food is not cheap ....... I know how to count .

OK. I ran the numbers. Everything I spent in grocery stores, food for me, paper towels, food for the soup kitchen, snacks I bring to the office for everyone else, $107.78 per week on average. (isn't quicken great, BTW?)

So, I might be a little bit low on the food. Maybe 80 a week. Still, it is CHEAP.

I spend about twice that every week for gas.

So, I repeat: If you and your significant other can't scrape together even 80 a week, maybe it's your priority. That, and there are plenty of free meals out there. you might be hungry from time to time (I am) but you will not starve. Starving is the claim.

It isn't happening.

As an aside, I buy almost the same food week in, week out, for years. the 2011 number is 95 dollars. That's an 11% increase, i.e. inflation in the last year.

but, there' no inflation, and the Obama eoconomy is grand.

You spend 80 dollars a week on groceries and you voted for a man who charged $50,000 a plate just to hear him speak .

I'm surprised at you skeeter .... supporting a party who doesn't think twice about wasting money and not to mention food.

Facts mean nothing to you, do they? Read the article. food is cheaper here than anywhere on the globe.

But, maybe you need to spend less time in the frozen pizza aisle, or more time at Market Basket and less time at Whole Foods.

Food is cheap. And plentiful. So plentiful we turn 40% of our corn into fuel. 40%. Think about it.

Yep.

skeeter I go shopping every week .... sometimes twice a week ..... food is not cheap ....... I know how to count .

OK. I ran the numbers. Everything I spent in grocery stores, food for me, paper towels, food for the soup kitchen, snacks I bring to the office for everyone else, $107.78 per week on average. (isn't quicken great, BTW?)

So, I might be a little bit low on the food. Maybe 80 a week. Still, it is CHEAP.

I spend about twice that every week for gas.

So, I repeat: If you and your significant other can't scrape together even 80 a week, maybe it's your priority. That, and there are plenty of free meals out there. you might be hungry from time to time (I am) but you will not starve. Starving is the claim.

It isn't happening.

As an aside, I buy almost the same food week in, week out, for years. the 2011 number is 95 dollars. That's an 11% increase, i.e. inflation in the last year.

but, there' no inflation, and the Obama eoconomy is grand.

You spend 80 dollars a week on groceries and you voted for a man who charged $50,000 a plate just to hear him speak .

I'm surprised at you skeeter .... supporting a party who doesn't think twice about wasting money and not to mention food.

So, for you, it isn't about feeding the hungry, it is about politics and control. And, might I add, sitting on your personal throne and judging others.

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view. For them, it is an emotional argument: people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful.

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed. It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again? Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

Conme on. Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

There used to be starvation.

Mexico has starvation.

Average food stamp outlay is $30.

Poor people have children.

So, tell me: how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly? Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve? Really? That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt. You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly? weakens you argument further. This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children". If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children. That makes sense, doesn't it?. I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

@ skeeter it's always about what it is the best for the USA with me .....I know I must have hit a nerve with that $50,000 dollars a plate comment .... but anyways Happy St Patrick's Day .. we'll drive the snakes out of this country too !